nocera wrote:Just cancel the season so I can cancel my sports package.

That's just it, they will drag this crap on till the bitter end. The moment they cancel the season, it removes the owners leverage to get a deal done anytime before next summer. As long as there is a season in the balance, the players will continue to try and get something done.

One thing the owners have in their back pocket is that once the season is burnt, only 40% of the players are then under contract. With a majority of players without a contract, it makes it easier for the owners to force the union to take whats on the table as this "make whole" garbage means a lot less to a lot less players.

2004 showed that the owners have even more leverage once they cancel a season. It proves they aren't bluffing. The players will be screwed in a couple different ways if they lose this season

This. The owners canceling the season is the owners nuclear option when it comes to negotiating.

I am so burnt right now I am starting to get the feeling that the owners want this season canned. The way Fehr said that Bettman told them that even if they agree to the owner's proposal to the comma, Bettman still said they wouldn't go forward. You get the feeling that the owners, in some perverse way, feel that saving 1 year's worth of contracts is worth the massive decline in revenue that the NHL is sure to face in the next 2 years. How can a fan support a league that doesn't want to operate?

nocera wrote:Just cancel the season so I can cancel my sports package.

That's just it, they will drag this crap on till the bitter end. The moment they cancel the season, it removes the owners leverage to get a deal done anytime before next summer. As long as there is a season in the balance, the players will continue to try and get something done.

One thing the owners have in their back pocket is that once the season is burnt, only 40% of the players are then under contract. With a majority of players without a contract, it makes it easier for the owners to force the union to take whats on the table as this "make whole" garbage means a lot less to a lot less players.

2004 showed that the owners have even more leverage once they cancel a season. It proves they aren't bluffing. The players will be screwed in a couple different ways if they lose this season

This. The owners canceling the season is the owners nuclear option when it comes to negotiating.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I am so burnt right now I am starting to get the feeling that the owners want this season canned. The way Fehr said that Bettman told them that even if they agree to the owner's proposal to the comma, Bettman still said they wouldn't go forward. You get the feeling that the owners, in some perverse way, feel that saving 1 year's worth of contracts is worth the massive decline in revenue that the NHL is sure to face in the next 2 years. How can a fan support a league that doesn't want to operate?

I've been catching $hi# on here for saying this from the beginning. The owners seek nothing less than complete destruction of the NHLPA. The players have limited options- go play in Europe or (as unlikely as it may seem) seek financing to create a new North American elite hockey league to compete (replace) the NHL. We as fans have no direct say and no direct form of attack on the NHL. What we can do, however, is show our support against such complete disregard to compromise (which I view as currently supporting the players but I will not necessarily say this is a permanent position) and to attack the BUSINESS of the NHL by boycotting their corporate partners (BTW, recently purchased 4 new tires for my honda...excluded Bridgestone from my selection due to their sponsorship of the NHL).

In the end, I have no vested interest in NHL revenues. I don't care if the league makes 3.3 billion, 300 billion or 300 million. I just want to watch the game I love being played by the best in the world. Lose corporate sponsorship- I don't care. Have lower caps and play people less- I don't care. Hold the game hostage- I care. And like I said, the only way for me (and more importantly, WE) to voice this displeasure...especially in the hopes of preventing future similar lockouts...is to treat the business like a business. They are doing what they believe makes financial sense. It is the fans, either directly via ticket sales and merchandise or by support of sponsor's products, that provide the financing. We are obliged to remind them of this...

That's all well and good, but the vast majority of hockey fans will return to the NHL when it returns. There may be an initial short-term hit, but it won't matter much in the long run.

Casual fans will have no effect either way - they're casual fans so they most likely don't care much that the game isn't being played, they only tune in casually anyway, and they will continue to when it is played.

I just don't buy in to hockey fans saying their interest in hockey is deteriorating. It isn't, it's just moving to the back burner and it will be back when hockey's back.

After all - if you weren't coming back when the NHL comes back, you sure as **** wouldn't be posting on this message board.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I am so burnt right now I am starting to get the feeling that the owners want this season canned. The way Fehr said that Bettman told them that even if they agree to the owner's proposal to the comma, Bettman still said they wouldn't go forward. You get the feeling that the owners, in some perverse way, feel that saving 1 year's worth of contracts is worth the massive decline in revenue that the NHL is sure to face in the next 2 years. How can a fan support a league that doesn't want to operate?

That is not quite what Bettman said and what was said was by a 3rd party and we are not even sure if it was 100% true, that it was said at all. But if it was true, Fehr said " even if we agree to the ecomonic plan the NHL wants, we have to agree with the contracting proposal the owners want along with it, or no deal. And Gary said " that is correct"

I think this is a PR stunt by the NHLPA, just like the owners played one when they claimed Fehr wasn't telling the truth about his proposal. Which i think it was the owners own PR stunt. We are back to mud slinging at this point.

Mr. Colby wrote:I just don't buy in to hockey fans saying their interest in hockey is deteriorating. It isn't, it's just moving to the back burner and it will be back when hockey's back.

I couldn't agree more which is why I've not said once that I am done. I have no backbone and I know it. I'm just ticked at the NHL for taking advantage of my wimpiness.

You can still love and watch the game...just do it while boycotting any business the NHL is partnered with. Bridgestone is the headline sponsor for the winter classic. Don't buy them...and let it be known that you won't buy them.

I guess everyone has their own views...I'm not interested in being another one of the cattle on the ranch waiting for my wallet to be slaughtered.

Mr. Colby wrote:I just don't buy in to hockey fans saying their interest in hockey is deteriorating. It isn't, it's just moving to the back burner and it will be back when hockey's back.

I couldn't agree more which is why I've not said once that I am done. I have no backbone and I know it. I'm just ticked at the NHL for taking advantage of my wimpiness.

You can still love and watch the game...just do it while boycotting any business the NHL is partnered with. Bridgestone is the headline sponsor for the winter classic. Don't buy them...and let it be known that you won't buy them.

I guess everyone has their own views...I'm not interested in being another one of the cattle on the ranch waiting for my wallet to be slaughtered.

The NHL is partnered with NBC and regional networks. By watching, you are supporting the product(s) one way or another.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I am so burnt right now I am starting to get the feeling that the owners want this season canned. The way Fehr said that Bettman told them that even if they agree to the owner's proposal to the comma, Bettman still said they wouldn't go forward. You get the feeling that the owners, in some perverse way, feel that saving 1 year's worth of contracts is worth the massive decline in revenue that the NHL is sure to face in the next 2 years. How can a fan support a league that doesn't want to operate?

the owners aren't one singular entity. new york probably doesn't support the lockout and wants back on the ice ASAP, middle of the road teams like pittsburgh are probably ok with it, but don't want to lose a season, and then a handful of teams that lose money and have no real on-ice or off-ice momentum probably wouldn't be too upset if they lose a season. but i doubt any team WANTS a cancelled season. they'd rather have their CBA terms accepted.

RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:I am so burnt right now I am starting to get the feeling that the owners want this season canned. The way Fehr said that Bettman told them that even if they agree to the owner's proposal to the comma, Bettman still said they wouldn't go forward. You get the feeling that the owners, in some perverse way, feel that saving 1 year's worth of contracts is worth the massive decline in revenue that the NHL is sure to face in the next 2 years. How can a fan support a league that doesn't want to operate?

the owners aren't one singular entity. new york probably doesn't support the lockout and wants back on the ice ASAP, middle of the road teams like pittsburgh are probably ok with it, but don't want to lose a season, and then a handful of teams that lose money and have no real on-ice or off-ice momentum probably wouldn't be too upset if they lose a season. but i doubt any team WANTS a cancelled season. they'd rather have their CBA terms accepted.

Just finished watching Hockey Central at Noon, and Kypreos & MacLean provided good insight into what the issues are. Basically, the league is trying to get back the freedoms the players got in the last CBA (UFA age, etc) but the players aren't fighting for today. They feel that if they give in now, then when this CBA is up in 5 years the NHL will come at them with 45-47%, a higher (again) UFA age, and even fewer contractual freedoms.

They made a point in saying the NHL is absolutely nuts for trying to put in the 5% escalator, where a player's contract can't increase or decrease by 5% from year to year. As MacLean put it "they're going to give them the money, so what right do they have to limit how it's allocated".

I figured a former player like Kypreos would be on their side, but for MacLean to put so much fault on the NHL was really surprising. Neither absolved the NHLPA of blame, but simply placed more on the NHL side of things.

Last edited by tfrizz on Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

He did. It's basically a case of who cares if you give a guy $1m + $2m + $3m or $2m +$2m + $2m for a 3-year $6m contract.

They also said that back in the last lockout the league (not players), complained about giving money to guys who were 31 and older (aince the UFA age was 31) but now they're complaining about having to give money to young guys.

Kypreos said that there's such a huge core of young players in the NHL now that the biggest concern for the PA is what happens when the new CBA expires.

He did. It's basically a case of who cares if you give a guy $1m + $2m + $3m or $2m +$2m + $2m for a 3-year $6m contract.

They also said that back in the last lockout the league (not players), complained about giving money to guys who were 31 and older (aince the UFA age was 31) but now they're complaining about having to give money to young guys.

Kypreos said that there's such a huge core of young players in the NHL now that the biggest concern for the PA is what happens when the new CBA expires.

So naturally all of their plans involved a 5 year expiration date so we have to go through another lockout in 5 years. Stupid.

He did. It's basically a case of who cares if you give a guy $1m + $2m + $3m or $2m +$2m + $2m for a 3-year $6m contract.

They also said that back in the last lockout the league (not players), complained about giving money to guys who were 31 and older (aince the UFA age was 31) but now they're complaining about having to give money to young guys.

Kypreos said that there's such a huge core of young players in the NHL now that the biggest concern for the PA is what happens when the new CBA expires.

So naturally all of their plans involved a 5 year expiration date so we have to go through another lockout in 5 years. Stupid.

IIRC I think it's 5 with an option for a 6th but they assume a partial 2012-13 season as the first.

Its really funny but most of the contractual issues the NHL wants to put in place is to stop the handful of GMs\teams who take advantage of the loop holes to alievate cap hits or cap circumvention. In essence its protecting the owners from them selves. Of course the NHL wants this so the league maintains parity.

The Weber contract Philly made was an embarassment to the league.NJ with the Kovalchuk 15 year deal was totally made to lower their cap hit. NYR with the Redden contract burried in the minors was not right.

These examples were not the players fault or even the NHLPA, it was teams that pulled this stuff. But now the players have to pay these freedoms since a few GMs fooled with the system. That was totally not right. But i do think you have to find ways to handcuff the GMs so they don't pull this stuff anymore.

tfrizz wrote:Just finished watching Hockey Central at Noon, and Kypreos & MacLean provided good insight into what the issues are. Basically, the league is trying to get back the freedoms the players got in the last CBA (UFA age, etc) but the players aren't fighting for today. They feel that if they give in now, then when this CBA is up in 5 years the NHL will come at them with 45-47%, a higher (again) UFA age, and even fewer contractual freedoms.

They made a point in saying the NHL is absolutely nuts for trying to put in the 5% escalator, where a player's contract can't increase or decrease by 5% from year to year. As MacLean put it "they're going to give them the money, so what right do they have to limit how it's allocated".

I figured a former player like Kypreos would be on their side, but for MacLean to put so much fault on the NHL was really surprising. Neither absolved the NHLPA of blame, but simply placed more on the NHL side of things.

If players are so paranoid that they're worried about owners taking even more 5 years from now, then forget about it. Not even worth discussing. This is now and leave the future to 5 years from now, but I doubt owners would want to be so blatant in trying to rip them off then. Current numbers are off, teams are losing money, but if they get a good deal for both sides now, there may not be big changes next time.

I don't know what the proper % in variance should be, but I think it's a good idea to have something like that. Some of those crazy deals are structured so the player, close or at his retirement age, is to make very little and it's obvious that is pure cap circumvention that should be eliminated.

wow, full of typos today.

Last edited by Sarcastic on Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

But this whole thing from both sides, the way they're dealing with each other, is very unprofessional. Should have started a year ago. Wait, sorry, couldn't. Fehr was still "learning the business". Why they hired a guy who didn't know a thing about the sport is beyond me. So they hired the biggest a-hole they could find. Whatever.

Last edited by Sarcastic on Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mr. Colby wrote:I just don't buy in to hockey fans saying their interest in hockey is deteriorating. It isn't, it's just moving to the back burner and it will be back when hockey's back.

I couldn't agree more which is why I've not said once that I am done. I have no backbone and I know it. I'm just ticked at the NHL for taking advantage of my wimpiness.

You can still love and watch the game...just do it while boycotting any business the NHL is partnered with. Bridgestone is the headline sponsor for the winter classic. Don't buy them...and let it be known that you won't buy them.

I guess everyone has their own views...I'm not interested in being another one of the cattle on the ranch waiting for my wallet to be slaughtered.

The 5% variance clause I think is an important thing on which the owners need to be unwilling to budge. All that does is close the cap loophole from the prior CBA. We can't have people cheating the system by making 500,000 for years 12-14 of the deal that will never even be played due to retirement.

On the players side of things, there's no reason to have a 5-year term limit. That is simply redundant. The 5% variance takes care of the loophole, and players do deserve long-term security if they want it.